On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> @@ -693,8 +748,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, 
> unsigned int subclass,
>                * mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
>                * before testing the error conditions to make sure we pick up
>                * the handoff.
> +              *
> +              * For w/w locks, we always need to do this even if we're not
> +              * currently the first waiter, because we may have been the
> +              * first waiter during the unlock.
>                */
> -             if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +             if (__mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>                       goto acquired;

So I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this. The point is that with the
.handoff logic it is very easy to accidentally allow:

        mutex_lock(&a);
        mutex_lock(&a);

And I'm not sure this doesn't make that happen for ww_mutexes. We get to
this __mutex_trylock() without first having blocked.


>               /*
> @@ -716,7 +775,20 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, 
> unsigned int subclass,
>               spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>               schedule_preempt_disabled();
>  
> -             if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
> +             if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
> +                     /*
> +                      * Always re-check whether we're in first position. We
> +                      * don't want to spin if another task with a lower
> +                      * stamp has taken our position.
> +                      *
> +                      * We also may have to set the handoff flag again, if
> +                      * our position at the head was temporarily taken away.
> +                      */
> +                     first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
> +
> +                     if (first)
> +                             __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> +             } else if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
>                       first = true;
>                       __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
>               }

So the point is that !ww_ctx entries are 'skipped' during the insertion
and therefore, if one becomes first, it must stay first?

> @@ -728,7 +800,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, 
> unsigned int subclass,
>                * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
>                */
>               if ((first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, 
> true)) ||
> -                  __mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +                  __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>                       break;
>  
>               spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);


Reply via email to